FAI
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by FAI
-
-
Anyone from Battlefront ever tried asking a Syrian general? I think they can find one that can be bribed with a beta testing account, an entry in the credits and a special edition CMSF signed by all Battlefront's crew
-
There was...? :eek: </font>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC:
Well, you know there was that one Pz IV that got credit for sinking a destroyer or somefink around the Dunkirk timeframe....
-
You're giving some people here nightmares and heart attacks....Originally posted by Ishapore41:Now if they would just collaborate and make a large-scale WWII FPS...oh it would kill all the other FPSs on the market right now.
-
There was...? :eek:Originally posted by RMC:Well, you know there was that one Pz IV that got credit for sinking a destroyer or somefink around the Dunkirk timeframe....
-
Still waiting....., ever so patiently
-
I'm rather confused here. That kind of tactic only worked when the enemy was easily identified (uniform, camps, heavy weapon emplacement, fighting vehicles, the works). Not the kind of elusive enemy they face in Iraq. I can see instead they wander into hostile teritory, and since the insurgents generally have better intelligence, walk right into an ambush, without armor.
-
Oh, do tell...Originally posted by Drusus:Removing an IED? I know at least a certain Russian tactic to this that can be easily simulated...
-
A modern RPG round is enough. Or two older RPG round striking roughly the same spot (the first to defeat the slat armour). Or any tandem warhead.Originally posted by Hoolaman:It is one thing to drive them around downtown Baghdad where there seems to be a lack of any large or sophisticated AT threats, but another to put them in the path of high velocity AT guns and modern ATGMs.
What would it take to kill a Stryker?
-
Err, anyone got any definite sources to the Hez' claim of sinking a Super Dvora FPB?
-
Against Kornett armed entrenched infantry?Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:how would a shock & awe "god with us" thunder run mech force fare?
Burning wrecks is my guess.
-
I hope your joking. Without an instructor I doubt they would ever figure it out. </font>Originally posted by zmoney:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:
At least if it is possible to simulate equipment captured during a battle, it should have massive penalties for using it. Like, having succesfully captured a largely intact AFV, it would take minutes for Syrian troops to figure out how to swing the turret, then learning the the targetting and firing procedures....
-
At least if it is possible to simulate equipment captured during a battle, it should have massive penalties for using it. Like, having succesfully captured a largely intact AFV, it would take minutes for Syrian troops to figure out how to swing the turret, then learning the the targetting and firing procedures....
-
B, China isn't ready yet to take Taiwan with their own initiative, but will likely to snatch the opportunity if it arises regardless of their readinessOriginally posted by Peter Cairns:FAI,
this is a pretty good over view, wouldn't treat it as gospel, but not much seems to be at odds with what you'd find elsewhere, though why I am putting in to my own Taiwan thread I don't know....
Anyway what are your swers to 1 to 5.
Peter.
A, the people is split, so I guess so is the Army
B, but elements of the Army will put up a fight, at least the loyalist
B, Indonesia, Korea and Japan are not in a position to challenge China's might, better stay neutral (formally)
B, though am not so sure, the US will be initially hesitant to commit ground troops, probably mostly due to insufficient number available on short notice.
-
I too believe that ROK's military is up to Western standards. But the problem is we don't know much about DPRK's actual military capabilities. Anyone has the North's OOB?Originally posted by Peter Cairns:...
If they try ( as they seem to be geared towards) too defeat the south with the tactics of the last korean conflict, then the Souths defences which are designed to deal with exactly that will make mince meat of them.
Peter.
-
As most non-American are at least mildly amused that there are people over there having unhealthy appetite for foreign military intervention outside their border.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Not being an american, I get a bit of a laugh from this "cool-aid" drinkers bit, as it seems to suggest that liberal americans can't drink like real men...
Peter.
-
There's something (wearable) that can stop a 50 cal Barret at point blank range?Originally posted by dan/california:There was a great Mythbusters on a lot of these bullet impact issues and how wrong Hollywood has them. They took an approximately man weight pig(dead), put a completely bullet proof somthing around it to ensure that the rounds didn't blow thru and was thus guaranteed to transfer all of it's momentum to the target, and hung it on a straight bar. They then proceeded to shoot it with every thing up to a Barret 50 cal and they may have used one of those too. End result, the pig barely twitches much less blows back. All caught on high speed camera ect., very good stuff.
:eek:
-
Since insurgency will not be in CM:SF, so Hizbullah is out of the picture too. I doubt Hizbullah will field anything significant in the event of an American thrust, they don't have front line troops formation afterall.
-
Don't give Charles a real stroke, will ya.... I still want to play this game in my lifetime, ya know.
-
Depressing indeed. It's well in my lifetime, for God's sake! There were times when the end of the world is at least counted in millenias to come. Suddenly those doomsday survival kits seem to be more attractive. Steve is already planning to stock on at least 20.000 rounds of military grade ammo in his little fortOriginally posted by Moronic Max:Dear Jesus, this is one depressing thread.
Steve brought the concept of inevitable global resource war to my attention (er, again; I guess I first saw that in Fallout 2), and I shall forever hate him for that.
-
I also believe that HAMAS is more likely to take a more pragmatic style. When it's their turn to actually govern rather than fight, most radicals tend to be less, well, radical. Radicalism isn't exactly the best way of successfully governing a delicate country, and I'm sure there are enough heads in HAMAS that understand that. Sure, they'll frequently rile at Israel (they're HAMAS, afterall), but actual violence on HAMAS' part will see a decline. I hope.
-
Bad example, I knowOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:FAI,
In theory we can easily allow equipment and what not to be used by either side. This is a side perk to the design that allows for Blue on Blue (or Red on Red, of course) type matchups. CMx1 was not set up to handle anything like this so it was a royal pain in the butt to add captured stuff for one side or the other.
Now, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we will. We are not planning on allowing Syrians to be driving around in "captured" Abrams, for example. The chances of this happening even once are so microscopically small that it isn't even worth thinking about.
Steve
But, still, I'd like to know the limitation, if it's already established. I'm guessing scavenging from friendly forces is a given, but what about from enemy equipment, like small arms? Perhaps a la Close Combat?
-
Not likely for the same reasons given for CMx1. And that is, by and large using the enemy's weapons is a bad idea. In fact, I just read an account of a soldier in Ramadi (I think it was there) that got cut off and holed up in an Iraqi house along with some other soldiers. This one soldier decided to use an AK-47 that the homeowner had on hand. The result of firing that gun out the window was a whithering amount of incoming fire from other US units. The rest of the guy's units screamed at him to not do that again, and he didn'tOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Cpl Steiner,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.
Steve </font>
-
Would someone tell me what is this "scalar weapon/technology" all about? I read the description in Wikipedia and it made my head hurt....Originally posted by John Kettler:Apropos of the earlier discussion on electrogravitics and scalar weapons, I invite your attentions to the current free PDF download of ATLANTIS RISING magazine available at www.atlantisrising.com I wrote the cover feature, "Weather Wars," but of probably greater interest to many of you will be Jeane Manning's (coauthor of ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS H.A.A.R.P) "The Hard Struggle for Electrogravitics," featuring some great info on the various researchers and their discoveries, the brutal campaign waged against one researcher who had a government job, and a first class cutaway drawing of the previously described Alien Replica Vehicle (ARV). Get the download while you can, for in a few weeks at most, it'll be gone, replaced by the next issue.
Regards,
John Kettler
-
Do you have any examples of such CMAK scenarios?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I've tried some myself, mostly to figure out what bits of CMx1 aren't suited to contemporary warfare. I will say that you can do quite a bit with CMx1 that mimics contemporary warfare pretty well, but one has to be careful about drawing conclusions from it because CMx1 was designed for WWII conventional warfare, plain and simple. So MAYBE the results of a well made CMAK sceanrio can give you some idea of what CM:SF will be like, but you'll never know until you have the latter to compare against. In other words, just because x tactic works in CMAK, and y fails, doesn't mean squat. Just like comparing outcomes of Steel Panthers or ASL can't be compared against each other or against CMBO.
Steve
New concept for CM:SF setting
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.
Steve </font>